(National Sentinel) Hot Water: A complaint filed earlier this month with the Federal Election Commission alleges that the campaign of 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee violated laws by essentially “laundering” hundreds of millions of dollars.

Writing in Investors Business Daily Dan Backer, a veteran campaign attorney who filed the complaint on behalf of the Committee to Defend the President, also noted that the organization has filed suit against Hillary Clinton’s campaign, Democratic National Committee (DNC), Democratic state parties and Democratic mega-donors.

In the FEC complaint, Backer said the organization documented that the Democratic establishment was “us[ing] state chapters as straw men to circumvent campaign donation limits and launder(ing) the money back to” Clinton’s campaign.

The 101-page complaint shined light on the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF), a $500 million joint fundraising committee between the Clinton campaign, the DNC, and dozens of state parties. Backer said that the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled such fundraising schemes are illegal in a prior case he brought before the high court.

“HVF solicited six-figure donations from major donors, including Calvin Klein and ‘Family Guy’ creator Seth MacFarlane, and routed them through state parties en route to the Clinton campaign,” Backer wrote. “Roughly $84 million may have been laundered in what might be the single largest campaign finance scandal in U.S. history.”

Backer noted that campaign finance law is intentionally murky, and that only a select few attorneys around the country who focus exclusively on it can understand its quirks. He said it is likely that the Clinton campaign and the DNC relied on that murkiness and lack of legal knowledge surrounding campaign finance law in order to launch their scheme.

“Here’s what you can do, legally,” Backer wrote. “Per election, an individual donor can contribute $2,700 to any candidate, $10,000 to any state party committee, and (during the 2016 cycle) $33,400 to a national party’s main account.

“These groups can all get together and take a single check from a donor for the sum of those contribution limits — it’s legal because the donor cannot exceed the base limit for any one recipient. And state parties can make unlimited transfers to their national party,” he continued.

“Here’s what you can’t do, which the Clinton machine appeared to do anyway. As the Supreme Court made clear in McCutcheon v. FEC, the JFC may not solicit or accept contributions to circumvent base limits, through ‘earmarks’ and ‘straw men’ that are ultimately excessive — there are five separate prohibitions here,” Backer noted.

Backer said it appears as though six-figure donations never actually went through state party accounts or were never under the control of state Democratic chapters. That adds false FEC reporting by the HVF, state parties, and the DNC to the list of alleged crimes.

Finally, as Donna Brazile and others admitted, the DNC placed the funds under the Clinton campaign’s direct control, a massive breach of campaign finance law that ties the conspiracy together,” he said.

“Democratic donors, knowing the funds would end up with Clinton’s campaign, wrote six-figure checks to influence the election — 100 times larger than allowed.”

To put the alleged legal violations into perspective, Backer noted that conservative filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza was prosecuted and convicted in 2012 for giving a small number of associates money they then contributed to a candidate of his preference, which amounted to straw man contributions.

For a relatively minor amount of money involving just $20,000, he was sentenced to eight months in a community confinement center and given five years probations.

“HVF weighs in at $84 million — more than 4,000 times larger!” Backer wrote.

“So who should be worried? Everyone involved — from the donors themselves to Democratic fundraisers to party officials who filed false reports and, ultimately, to Clinton campaign and HVF officials looking at significant legal jeopardy.”